Another example to look at is Open Repositories, which entered into an MOU with CLIR last year to serve as "financial sponsor" for the OR conference series. In this model, CLIR does not bear the financial risk of the annual conference but essentially serves as a banker for any surplus generated. The host institution each year is the one that enters into contracts with hotels, etc., and bears the financial and legal risks of hosting, but there is an implied expectation that the funds held for OR by CLIR would be used to help cover a loss that occurs due to extraordinary circumstances.

Since, like Hydra and Code4Lib, OR does not exist as a legal entity, the MOU is between the OR Steering Committee and CLIR.


-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Esmé Cowles
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 4:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib?

I don't think there is any Hydra legal entity (hence the need for a financial host), and the MOU is signed on behalf of the leadership committee.  So I think it boils down to being organized enough for the financial host to be comfortable entering into an agreement with them.

I can ask the people I know on the Hydra leadership committee to get more info on how the arrangement works.


> On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Jenn C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This sounds like an intriguing option. What is "Hydra" that it is able 
> to enter into an MOU - is the steering group an incorporated entity?
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I remember another option being brought up: picking an official 
>> organizational home for C4L that would handle being the financial 
>> host for the conference, and possibly other things (conference 
>> carryover, scholarship fundraising, holding intellectual property, 
>> etc.).  An existing library non-profit might be able to do this without that much overhead.
>> For example, Hydra has a MOU with DuraSpace for exactly this kind of 
>> arrangement, and there was a post recently about renewing the 
>> arrangement for another year, including the MOU:
>> In the past, there has been a great deal of resistance to making C4L 
>> more organized, and especially on the amount of work needed to run a 
>> non-profit organization.  So having a financial host arrangement 
>> could be a lighter-weight option.
>> -Esmé
>>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess 
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>> I think this deserves its own thread--thanks for bringing it up,
>> Christina!
>>> I'm also interested in investigating how to formalize Code4Lib as an 
>>> entity, for all of the reasons listed earlier in the thread. I can't 
>>> volunteer to be the leader/torch-bearer/main source of energy behind 
>>> the investigation right now (sorry), but I'm happy to join any group 
>>> that
>> takes
>>> this on. I might be willing to *co*-lead, if that is what it takes 
>>> to get the process started.
>>> And, yes, anyone who has talked to me or read my rants about the 
>>> proliferation of library professional organizations is going to 
>>> think my volunteering for this is really funny. But I think forming 
>>> a group to gather information gives us the chance to determine, as a 
>>> community, whether Code4Lib delivers enough value and has enough of 
>>> a separate identity to be worth forming Yet Another Professional 
>>> Organization (my
>> gut
>>> answer, today? "yes"), or whether we would do better to fold into, 
>>> or become a sub-entity of, some existing organization; or, 
>>> (unlikely) should Code4Lib stop being A Big International Thing and just do regional stuff?
>>> Or some other option I haven't listed--I don't even know what all 
>>> the options are, right now.
>>> One note on the "no, let's not organize" sentiment: the problem with 
>>> a
>> flat
>>> organization, or an anarchist collective, or a complete "do-ocracy," 
>>> is that the decision-making structures aren't as obvious to 
>>> newcomers, or
>> even
>>> long-term members who aren't already part of those structures. There 
>>> is value to formality, within reason. I mean... right now, I don't 
>>> know how
>> to
>>> go about getting "permission" to form this exploratory group, right?
>> Having
>>> some kind of formal structure would help.
>>> So... how do we do that? Can we do that? Who wants to help?
>>> - Coral
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Salazar, Christina < 
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> It's probably too late for a 2017 but I really do think it's time 
>>>> to reopen the question of formalizing Code4Lib IF ONLY FOR THE 
>>>> PURPOSES OF BEING THE FIDUCIARY AGENT for the annual conference.
>>>> Local (and national) politics aside, it's very difficult to stand 
>>>> in
>> front
>>>> of your boss (or worse, a total stranger) and ask them to be 
>>>> willing to cover financial liability for an unaffiliated, purely 
>>>> voluntary organization. In addition, we're no longer talking about 
>>>> a couple
>> thousand
>>>> dollars financial liability, we are now getting into a HUNDRED 
>>>> THOUSAND DOLLARS liability.
>>>> I question the sustainability of this present system for the long term.
>>>> PS (I know, everyone says no no no, we don't want to be organized, 
>>>> but
>> my
>>>> feeling is that we need a better way to manage the funding part of 
>>>> the conference... Or choose to go local only.)
>>>> Christina Salazar
>>>> Systems Librarian
>>>> John Spoor Broome Library
>>>> California State University, Channel Islands
>>>> 805/437-3198
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
>>>> Behalf Of Brian Rogers
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:27 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: [CODE4LIB] Update Regarding C4L17 in Chattanooga
>>>> Greetings from the Chattanooga C4L17 Planning Committee:
>>>> This is a follow-up to Andrea Schurr’s May 18th email (
>>>> regarding the survey around potential impact 
>>>> on attendance of the 2017 Code4Lib conference, given the host of 
>>>> discriminatory/concerning legislation in Tennessee.
>>>> Please see the summary of results below. We thank the individuals 
>>>> who
>> took
>>>> the time to respond and provide thoughtful answers as to the issues 
>>>> at hand, as well as suggest possible solutions. We met as a group 
>>>> last
>> Tuesday
>>>> to decide how to proceed. As many pointed out, they were not easy 
>>>> questions, and so predictably, there were no easy answers.
>>>> We’ve determined that given this community’s commitment to 
>>>> providing a safe and accommodating environment for all attendees, 
>>>> it is morally and fiscally irresponsible to continue the effort of 
>>>> hosting the annual conference in Chattanooga. This decision was not 
>>>> an easy one, and there were hours of discussion as to the pros and 
>>>> cons of proceeding,
>> informed by
>>>> your responses to the survey, as well as our individual opinions.
>>>> This decision is additionally informed by the inability to secure a
>> fiscal
>>>> host for the conference. Even prior to legislative concerns, 
>>>> multiple institutions in the southeast took a pass, given the size 
>>>> of attendance
>> and
>>>> increased risk of liability. The two viable leads we pursued 
>>>> finally confirmed as a “no” last week. Those decisions were in part 
>>>> or wholly informed by the financial risk assumed by a host having 
>>>> to contend with
>> an
>>>> unpredictable timeline of withdrawn support via geographical boycott.
>>>> Which leaves us with the voluminous question of, “Now what?” 
>>>> Threading together survey and committee responses, we put forth the 
>>>> following to
>> the
>>>> Code4Lib community:
>>>> 1. There is a host site that has contacted the Chattanooga Planning 
>>>> Committee and informed us they are actively seeking a fiscal host 
>>>> and should shortly know the results of that endeavor. Given that no 
>>>> other
>> city
>>>> submitted a proposal, Chattanooga will pass along documentation and 
>>>> responsibility for next year’s conference if they are successful.
>>>> 2. If this alternative site is unable to procure a fiscal host, 
>>>> then we suggest shifting the 2017 conference from in-person to 
>>>> virtual. We
>> already
>>>> have a potential fiscal host for this option, but we would open the 
>>>> implementation of such to the community. All of us agree that 
>>>> virtual cannot replace the feel and value of an in-person 
>>>> conference. However, given the mounting size of participation and 
>>>> the absence of a stable, consistent funding base, coupled with a 
>>>> socially conscious community,
>> this
>>>> year is a hard sell across many of the states.
>>>> 3. For those interested and willing, simultaneously host in-person 
>>>> regional conferences alongside the main virtual conference. We 
>>>> realize,
>> of
>>>> course, that this leaves a vast majority of the southeast in a
>> predicament,
>>>> unless another region wishes to adopt us.
>>>> Know that this is not our preferred outcome, and that everyone on 
>>>> the planning committee wishes we could make this conference happen 
>>>> in Chattanooga. It is a grand little city with unexpected delights. 
>>>> We
>> invite
>>>> any and all questions, concerns, responses and conversation. Here,
>> Slack,
>>>> IRC, Twitter, Friendster, Myspace, and wherever else people seem to 
>>>> be lurking these days.
>>>> And with that, here is a summary of the survey results. Out of 
>>>> respect
>> to
>>>> those who answered under condition of anonymity, we are only 
>>>> sharing the raw numbers and not the freeform responses.
>>>> Q1: Given the current state of legislation in Tennessee, would you
>> boycott
>>>> Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses:
>>>> 22.58% Yes, I would boycott.
>>>> 77.42% No, I would not boycott.
>>>> Q2: If Tennessee was considering a North Carolina type bathroom 
>>>> bill, would you boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 124 Responses:
>>>> 26.61% Yes, I would boycott.
>>>> 73.38% No, I would not boycott.
>>>> Q3: If Tennessee passed a North Carolina type bathroom bill, would 
>>>> you boycott Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga? 123 Responses:
>>>> 46.34% Yes, I would boycott.
>>>> 53.66% No, I would not boycott.
>>>> Q4: If you indicated that you would consider boycotting the 
>>>> conference, would you reconsider if Code4Lib made a significant 
>>>> donation to an organization fighting against discrimination in 
>>>> Tennessee? 121
>> Responses:
>>>> 34.71% Yes, I would consider attending.
>>>> 19.83% No, I would still boycott.
>>>> 45.45% N/A (I would not consider boycotting the conference.)
>>>> Q5: If your organization implemented a travel ban to Tennessee, 
>>>> would
>> you
>>>> consider attending Code4Lib 2017 in Chattanooga using your personal
>> funds
>>>> and on your personal time? 122 Responses:
>>>> 26.23% Yes, I would consider using my personal time/funds to attend.
>>>> 73.77% No, I would not consider using my personal time/funds to attend.
>>>> --
>>>> Brian Rogers
>>>> Director of Library IT & Professor
>>>> UTC Library, Dept. 6456
>>>> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
>>>> Phone: 423-425-5279
>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]